After a long wait the Department of Planning have listed the
Pemulwuy Project on the Major Projects Register. The listing makes public the September amendment Pemulwuy Project (PDF 1Mb) to
the AHC’s initial project description which was prepared in March 2006 and the Director-General Environmental Assessment
Requirements (56Kb) that a project application /
concept plan for the site will need to meet.

It is important at the outset to note that the document
appearing on the Departments web site Pemulwuy Project (PDF 1Mb) is
an amendment to the original project description. The initial project
description contained more information than is on the web site but due to the
changes in the planning controls for the area the initial application has been
superseded. The Department requested the AHC to resubmit addressing the final
RWA BEP and SEPP zones. As a result the AHC description appearing on the Department’s website is very
general and provides only a broad indication of what the AHC initially proposed
for the site. The photomontage and the colour drawings are included at the
Department of Planning’s suggestion as they had been shown to Council during
earlier discussions with council and government departments. With the changes
in the planning controls some of the illustrations especially along the railway
line do not represent current AHC thinking.

While the housing component
shown depicts current AHC thinking for the site, the concept covering the land
along the railway line is a basic outline of what might be developed if all
landowners were in agreement and no details are provided. At the time that the
AHC submitted an outline to the Department of Planning, the Draft Built
Environment Plan proposed a residential reduction to a FSR of 0.5:1 and the
building of the 62 homes on the Block would have been difficult for the AHC
unless it could enter an agreement with at least some other land owners.

Under the current planning
controls the AHC thinking is to limit the project predominantly to
their own land moving the building along the railway line south towards Redfern
Railway Station. However the broad project outline submitted to the Department
of Planning allows all the landowners covered by the concept to join with the
AHC in the Project by mutual agreement if they so wish.

It should also be made clear that under the Major Projects
arrangements the AHC document is not a ‘development application’ as you would
expect to see under council. In effect it is a document designed to indicate to
the Department the interest of a developer to do a development. It is produced
so the Department can prepare the Director General’s Requirements (DGRs). The
DGRs tell the developer what they have to include in their project application
or concept plan for the site. In the case of the DGRs supplied to the AHC they
are almost equivalent to what would be required for the major project
equivalent to a ‘Development Application’. The AHC can now refine its proposal
in line with the DGRs and discuss possibilities with other interested land
owners and the community to prepare its project application / ‘development
application’ which, after checking by the Department of Planning, would be
exhibited similar to a local government DA.

As a result of the above process the listing on the
Department of Planning website is a little strange. It has an early major
project number (reflecting it was prepared in March and then circulated to
government departments and council for their DGR recommendations). The AHC
requested a delay in the DGRs until the SEPP for the area was finalised. The
resultant amendment 01 dated 6th September 2006, after the final
SEPP was gazetted on 30th August 2006, was all that was posted, as
parts of the earlier project description were rendered irrelevant by the SEPP
change and hence became misleading. Ultimately the AHC plans have been, and we
suspect will continue to be, governed both by what the Minister will allow and
the interest of surrounding landowners in being involved in the Block
redevelopment.

As mentioned above Director-General Environmental Assessment
Requirements (56Kb) are prepared based on the input from government
departments, council and, in the case of our area, the RWA. DGRs hence vary
from project to project. It is therefore informative to compare the AHC DGRs
with the DGRs for some other local projects (say Channel 7 in the ATP and CUB)
as this highlights what has been put in the DGRs specifically for this project.
From such a comparison major differences in the three areas below stand out.

A
Social Impacts section - this is not common in DGRs. A Google search of the
Department of Planning site for DGRs that include a Social Impacts Section only
showed up the North and South West
Rail Link DGRs as having this section but in very different terms. One gets the
impression that the Eveleigh Street Precinct is being asked to jump through
hoops that other developers are not required to do. While this may be the
ushering in of a whole new government agenda for broader social responsibility
for property developers, we suspect not. Ask yourself for a moment what would
happen if these conditions were put on Meriton or another major developer on
any similar sized developments away from the Block:

“Address the relocation of existing
residents during the construction phase of the proposed development and any
longer term impacts on the immediate and wider Aboriginal community. As some of
the existing houses within the project site provide a source of affordable
housing for Aboriginal people, the impact on these residents and the
neighbouring community must be addressed. The project shall identify
employment, education, cultural, social and residential opportunities that will
be provided to support the development of a sustainable community. The project
must address long term social sustainability issues such as governance, housing
mix, community safety, local community impacts and minimisation of crime and
anti-social behaviour.”

Staging – The usual requirement seems to be that it
“be done in an orderly manner”, however the Pemulwuy project DGRs set
conditions which seem designed to ensure houses and offices are built in a set
ratio throughout the development and are subject to subjective assessments such
as a “bona fide commitment and achievability of a genuine mixed used”:

demonstration as to how residential and
non-residential components of the project will be integrated for each stage to
ensure the achievement of a mixed use precinct;

demonstration as to how the development,
when completed, will achieve the objectives of the SEPP (Major Projects)
Amendment No. 7 2005 (Redfern-Waterloo) for the Business zone – mixed use;

a demonstrated bona fide commitment and
achievability of a genuine mixed used development;

Consultation with Local Aboriginal and community groups
– It is good to see consultation with the community as part of any development,
however again you have to ask if the Department of Planning are proposing to
roll this out across all 3A Major Projects or only for the Eveleigh Street
precinct. We note for example that consultation with the local community is not
a requirement for either the CUB site or the Channel 7 3A major project DGRs.
We are sure that the Chippendale people would love Fosters, or the Expert Panel
for that matter, to have to describe the consultation process and the issues
raised in the formulation of the design of the project!

Given the significance of the Block to the wider Aboriginal
community details of the consultation undertaken with the Aboriginal community
in the formulation and design of the project should be provided. The
consultation process and the issues raised should be described in the
Environmental Assessment.

The AHC can now sit down and finalise their development
proposal. The reduction of the residential FSR from 1:1 to 0.75:1 over the
Block, where the AHC wants to put the housing component, still creates a
problem for the Pemulwuy Project. The AHC is still pushing for the residential
allowance of 1:1 to be restored and the AHC and REDWatch has recently met with
NSW Upper House MPs to discuss the AHC’s concerns. If the Block was in South Australia the
parliament would be able to override the Minister’s decision but in NSW this is
not possible.

The AHC is scheduled to meet Minister Sartor on 1st November
2006. The Minister has the power to restore the residential FSR over the Block.
The question is will Minister Sartor restore the 1:1 residential floor space
for the area where the AHC want to build houses, and bring it into line with
the residential allowance he has provided adjoining sites or will the Minister
use the 0.75:1 residential allowance to try and push the AHC to further modify
their development plans for the Block?

The Department of Planning have also just posted the DGR for the other Eveleigh Street Precinct Major
Project on Cleveland Street.
These DGRs were posted after the AHC DGRs and share a lot in common with the
AHC’s DGRs. They include “Social and Economic Impacts” which include long term
sustainability issues like governance and the requirement to consult with local
community groups and to describe the consultation process and issues raised in
the Environmental Assessment. There are a few other differences such as there
is no requirement for the employment of aboriginal people on the Cleveland Street
project or for the “bona fide commitment” requirement made on the AHC.

Reorganising youth services into three youth precincts was one of the
main goals from the first round of the RWA Human Services Plan. Part of this
reorganisation of youth services was the establishment a Youth Taskforce. A Place where the
RWA and youth services could meet together and work out how they can better
provide youth services in the area seemed like a good co-operative mechanism to
us. We were hence a little surprised in the last few days to hear that Youth
Taskforce meetings have again been cancelled this time until further notice. It
appears that the RWA has not yet finalised the directions for the Youth
Services Framework and until this is finalised there is no point in the
Taskforce meeting! We think this underlines the broadly held perception that
RWA Taskforces are part of a centrally directed process for top down change rather
than a place where services meet together to address the issues and challenges
facing them and the youth of the area.

If reorganising Youth Services
was the push from the first stage of the Human Services Plan the reorganising
Community Centre’s seems to be the RWA focus for NGOs from the second stage. We
have been alerted now from a few directions to a round of discussions between
community centre CEOs in Redfern Waterloo and the RWA in the lead up to a
Community Centres Roundtable on October 26th. Aldo Pennini, RWA Director
Reforming Human Services has confirmed to us that the RWA is starting a process
of talking to Community Centres with a view to looking at how Community Centres
may better respond to the needs of the Redfern Waterloo community. The RWA are
initially looking to identify service gaps and areas where improved service
delivery might be possible.

This is one of the busiest times
of the year for project acquittals, annual reports, AGMs and of course
preparing comments on the Draft Human Services Plan Phase 2. We are told that
there has been very short notice about the roundtable and for community centres
to think about how they can best respond to the questions being asked.
According to participants one of the early issues appears to be what
constitutes a community centre? The RWA are using a much broader definition
than the organisations traditionally considered local community centres and
funded to act as community centres.

Our major concern however is that
most Community Centres operate from a community base with community management
committees containing people with long experience in the area. While we
appreciate that the RWA is starting this process by discussions with CEOs, we
are particularly concerned that the Community Centre review process does not
get too advanced before there are opportunities for management committees and
other interested members of the community to input into the process. Planning
for improved Community Centres would seem to be an ideal area for some bottom
up participatory planning drawing on the wide experience in the community
rather than the predominantly top down processes experienced under the RWA Reformation
to date.

The RWA have produced an October edition of their Redfern-Waterloo
Update which has a focus on the Draft Phase 2 Human Services Plan. The RWA
newsletter lists out the 8 Key proposed priorities and the key actions proposed
for each priority. This will be the first broad notification about the Stage 2
service areas to the community and it is to be hoped that the newsletter will
generate some input to the RWA before 7 November 2006. If you have not seen a
printed copy, download Redfern Waterloo Update
October 2006 (pdf ~278kb). It is probably also worthwhile again
mentioning here that REDWatch is holding a meeting on 1st November
at the Factory at 6pm on the issues raised in the RWA’s Update.

The RWA Update also has a small article about the Redfern
Street Health Centre which is expected to be completed in late 2008 as well as
articles on catering assistance and the Federal State
indigenous agreement which we have mentioned below.

The RWA newsletter provides a little more information on the
agreement signed by Frank Sartor and Mal Brough which was first mentioned at
the release of the RWA Built Environment Plan F4 Aboriginal Affordable Housing.doc. It is
hoped that the agreement will be made public soon so everyone affected can see
what has been decided about them. The RWA newsletter said:

The NSW Minister for Redfern-Waterloo, Frank Sartor, and the
Federal Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal
Brough, have signed a 10-year partnership agreement on enhancing opportunities
for Redfern-Waterloo’s Indigenous community.

The agreement’s aim is for both governments to work closely
on initiatives relating to employment and enterprise, education and training,
health, Indigenous housing (including the area known as the Block) and delivery
of other human services, “as a means to address social and economic
disadvantage, to reduce welfare dependency through wealth creation and to
improve delivery of services.

The ILC have certainly been busy in Redfern this year. In addition to
the former Redfern school site they have also been involved with the old Black
Theatre site and in purchasing 233
Abercrombie Street for future use by Mudgin-gal.
The DA (Number: D/2006/1615) for the Black Theatre site is for 27, 29 and 31
Cope Street as well as 88 and 90 Renwick Street. The DA is currently on
exhibition through the City Council until 31st October 2006. The DA
proposes a new three storey commercial building fronting Cope Street. The building is proposed to
accommodate retail uses on the ground floor, office space on the first floor
and a radio station on the second floor plus a rooftop terrace. Car parking and
landscaping are also proposed, with vehicle entry provided from Renwick Street.
Plans for 31 Cope
Street REDFERN NSW 2016can be downloaded from the City of Sydney website.

The focus for the next City of Sydney Community Forum for Redfern Waterloo
and Eveleigh will be on the proposed Local Action Plan. This has been developed
from community surveys circulated earlier in the year as well as studies, discussion
with resident focus groups, Councillors and many other interested people. Council
is bringing it back for consultation and discussion at the meeting. Some
details of the shared community values and suggested projects have been placed
on the councils website at http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Development/LocalActionPlans/InnerSouth.asp
and in the leaflet advertising the
meeting Update - October |
PDF 1Mb.

The hour from 6.00pm – 7.00pm will again be
available for residents to meet with councillors, council staff and police to
talk about their own issues. From 7.00pm – 8.30pm the meeting will focus on the
Draft Local Action Plan discussion plus an update on Redfern Street and Regent Street upgrade. The forum will be
held at Redfern Town Hall, 73 Pitt Street, Redfern.

Part of the Redfern
Street upgrade is the inclusion of public art to
reflect the cultural and physical character of the street. After review of the
expression of interests, the Redfern Street Public Art Review Group have
selected five artists to submit concept proposals in direct response to a
public art brief for Redfern Street and Jack Floyd Reserve. Concept proposals
are now on display for public comment at the Council’s Redfern Neighbourhood
Service Centre in Tower 2, 1
Lawson Square, Redfern, until Monday 6th November.
Centre opening hours are: Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm & Saturdays 9am to 12
noon. The proposals will also be on display at the Inner South Community Forum
at Redfern Town Hall on Monday 30th October from
6pm to 8.30pm.

Follow the exhibition period The Redfern St Public Art
Review Group will assess the proposals and public comment to select a proposal
to be developed as a permanent public art work. The group is to represent local
views and knowledge as well as experience in public art and will make the final
decision as to which proposal will be developed. The developed scheme is
anticipated to be prepared for February 2007 for inclusion in the construction
program of the main works. Information about the upgrade can be accessed on
online at http://cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Development/CityImprovements/RedfernAndRegentStreetUpgrade.asp.
For further information contact: Lisa Dodd, Redfern Street Project Design
Manager, ph 9246 7693 ldodd@cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au.

The final plans for the Macdonaldtown Stabling Project are on display
for the next two weeks at the Erskineville Town Hall (Mon-Fri 9am-5pm) and
Newtown Library (Mon & Wed 10am-7pm, Tues, Thurs, Fri 10am -6pm; Saturday
9am-4pm and Sunday 12noon – 4pm). There has been a lot of concern about the
sound barrier proposals put forward for the project as well about trees being
removed from near Macdonaldtown Station without proper consent. If you have
concerns about the project you should have a look at the latest plans and put
in your comments.

The Department of Planning has released a new SEPP prepared to
consolidate and update planning provisions relating to infrastructure and
government land. The draft SEPP outlines planning processes for considering
classes of public infrastructure and particular infrastructure projects,
exempts some minor public infrastructure from the need for an approval,
clarifies where new infrastructure can be located and provides for additional
permissible uses on government land and requires State agencies constructing
infrastructure to consult local councils when a new infrastructure development
is likely to affect existing local infrastructure or services. The draft policy
can be found at www.planning.nsw.gov.au/planning_reforms

The latest edition of Redwater
News, the Newsletter of the Redfern and Waterloo
public housing tenants Neighbourhood Advisory Boards is out and can be
downloaded from the REDWatch website at October 2006 (PDF 831 KB). Apart from the
reports about what is going on in various NAB precincts there are also articles
on dehumanisation; the Department of Housing High Rise Strategy Project; Do you
need assistance accessing fresh fruit and vegies? ; Mental health consumers (Eastern
Zone); Getting off Direct Marketing lists; Waterloo honours the late Joan Russell and
Redfern-Waterloo Built Environment Plan; as well as information on local
activities and services.

The Housing communities
Assistance Program (HCAP) has a new Development Worker, Michael Shreenan has recently
taken up post as the new Community Development worker for the Redfern and Waterloo
area taking over from Orna Marks. Michael can be contacted at the Factory on
8399 1011.

The ALP National Policy Committee is having a National
policy Dialogue Aged Care Public Forum on Thursday 23rd November 10.30—11.30am
at PCYC South Sydney, 638
Elizabeth St, Redfern. Speakers include: Senator
Jan McLucas Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers; Paul Versteege
Combined Pensioners and Superannuants; Pat Joyce The Aged Care Rights Service.
This is an ALP function open to the public and is an opportunity to ensure your
views, knowledge and ideas are considered as part of the ALP policy renewal.
The poster for the event can be downloaded from ALP Aged care Consultation - 23 November 2006.
RSVP: Paula.OSullivan@aph.gov.au or Ph. (02) 9357 6366 (Essential for catering
purposes).

We have been asked to spread the word about the NEON Careers
and Employment Expo that will be held 10:00 am – 2:00 pm, Friday 1 December
2006 on the Vice-Chancellor’s Oval, near Henderson Rd, Australian Technology
Park, Eveleigh. This is
an opportunity for people looking for employment to come and meet Australia’s
top employers and training providers and to talk to employers about job
opportunities that suit you. There will be a free sausage sizzle, entertainment
and prizes to be won. For more
information see your school careers adviser or call Mark Spinks, Indigenous
Service Officer, Centrelink Ph. 9243 3546. This event is organised by
Centrelink in partnership with NSW Government agencies and is the seventh
annual New Employment Opportunities Network (NEON) event. A poster for the Expo
can be downloaded from Neon Employment Expo - 1st December 2006

Have your say –
Consultations mentioned previously:

Below we have re-listed the various Plans and Consultations currently
looking for community input:

- Inner West
Local Action Plan Consultation – until Thursday 26th October 2006

REDWatch’s next
meeting will be on Wednesday 1st November 2006. The meeting will
focus on the Draft Human Services Plan. Aldo Panini the RWA Director reforming
Human Services will attend and we are encouraging all service providers and
residents with an interest in the services covered by the Phase 2 Draft to
attend. REDWatch meets downstairs at The Factory, 67 Raglan Street Waterloo.
A Poster for REDWatch HSP2 Meeting 1st November 2006 (PDF 494Kb) can
be downloaded from the REDWatch website.